<div dir="auto">For what it's worth, as far as I can see, this is not paywalled...</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 10:14 AM Peter Murray-Rust <<a href="mailto:pm286@cam.ac.uk">pm286@cam.ac.uk</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>I was interviewed by Chemistry World (Royal Soc Chem) last week about Projekt DEAL 's agreement with Springer. <br>TL;DR I read as much as I could and gave the interview and said I was deeply unhappy about DEAL. The interview appeared, it 's now behind a premium wall. It mangled what I said and has done AmeliCA (which I said was a better way forward) a serious disservice. I have asked CW to correct and apologize. I post my snippet here.<br>TL;DR+ I tweeted this and there has been an intense discussion (in as much as Twitter allows this). Assuming that what I learn is corroborated here , I have an even worse opinion of DEAL (my comments to CW are mild); I am appalled at both the total waste of resources but also that DEAL is preventing evolution of BOAI Open Access and the huge missed opportunities. [I am ready to be corrected by facts, because the DEAL site and reporting makes it very difficult to get at the real facts.]<br> <br>First what I said: (now premiumwalled)</div><div><div><a href="https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/mixed-reception-for-german-open-access-deal-with-springer-nature/3010886.article" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><br class="m_-3041377564938066933gmail-Apple-interchange-newline">https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/mixed-reception-for-german-open-access-deal-with-springer-nature/3010886.article</a></div><div><br></div><div>>>><br></div><div>[snipped]<br></div><div><h3 id="m_-3041377564938066933gmail-m_-4286971405356468383gmail-An_absolute_minefield">An ‘absolute minefield’</h3><p>>>Not everyone is enthusiastic, however. <a href="https://www.ch.cam.ac.uk/person/pm286" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Peter Murray-Rust</a>, a chemist at the University of Cambridge who champions open access publishing, calls the new arrangement ‘hugely expensive’ and ‘administratively heavy’, and he describes it as ‘a total fragmentation’ of scientific publishing. ‘This might work well for German academics in negotiations with one particular publisher, but it doesn’t necessarily translate to another type of publisher in another country – you can see an absolute minefield of deals being set up.’</p><p>>>Further, Murray-Rust argues that by omitting <em>Nature,</em> and other flagship scientific journals, the deal solidifies the research publishing scene to major commercial players and rich countries, and creates a glory-based industry rather than a knowledge dissemination mechanism. ‘These are glory journals, or high-impact journals, and they can probably charge more,’ he tells <em>Chemistry World</em>. ‘It is purely a marketing ploy.’</p><p>>>Meanwhile, <a href="https://cyber.harvard.edu/people/psuber" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Peter Suber</a>, who directs Harvard University library’s office for scholarly communication, recalls that <a href="https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/german-universities-take-on-elsevier-/3007807.article" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Elsevier in the past was unable to reach negotiation on a similar agreement with Project Deal</a>. ‘Springer Nature is showing more flexibility than Elsevier, and more willingness than Elsevier to meet the needs and interests of universities,’ he says.</p><p>>>Many opponents of arrangements like Project DEAL note that they might be imperfect but could serve as stepping-stones to better agreements. As an example of a preferable OA publishing model, Murray-Rust points to a new approach in Latin America, known as <a href="http://amelica.org/index.php/en/about/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">AmeliCA</a>, which was launched last year.</p><p>>>Led in part by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), ***Project DEAL*** is centred on a non-profit publishing model and controlled by an inter-institutional academy. It involves universities and scientific journals sharing a common infrastructure of software, tools, hosting and training services.</p><p>*** This shocking mistake should read AmeliCA ***</p><p>PMR> my message a week ago is that the AmeliCA model should be what honours the BOAI with its vision of free shared knowledge "the rich with the poor and the poor with the rich"<br><br></p><p>I am not involved in German journals policy but I believe that:<br><br></p><p>the aim of DEAL was to convert ("flip") current subscription-based publishing (free to author, pay to read) to APC-based (free to read, pay to author). This was an opportunity for DEAL (which is spending taxpayers money) to demand transparency, insist on a more equitable model, and reduce overall expenditure. As far as I can see (and I will stand corrected by facts) it has done none, and has not even tried to do any.<br>Note that the Glamour mags (Nature and Nature children) are not part of the deal which is 40,000,000 Eur for about 16,000 published articles. DEAL published that the effective price per article was 2750 Eur. which figures</p><p><br>Instead, and this is conjecture, the base assumptions are:<br>* we need to flip journals to Gold OA. (the motivation for this is not clear, but probably because funders are or will require it). <br>* Springer (and Wiley) won't do this unless their income stream is preserved. These publishers give value for money so we simply change the payment model. The costs are what the publishers tell us are necessary and we give them a lump sum without breakdown.<br>* Authors won't flip unless all their costs are paid<br>* The main purpose of publishing is to allow authors to get credit for their work. The only authors we need to consider are those supported by universities and research institution grantholders.</p><p>* Readers are much less important and there is no pressing need to consult them <br><br>Twitter is a poor place to find facts and discussion , but I managed to get the following information.<br>* No detailed study on publisher costs had been done (and certainly not published)<br>* No significant section of civil society (i.e. not in Universities) had been cosulted<br>* No readership had been consulted.<br><br>My impression before DEAL was that the scholarly poor could not read the literature, and now they can read it, but not publish. <br>If that is true then:<br>* it deepens the divide between the rich and the poor<br>* it sets up universities as a write-only priesthood with no mechanism for multiway discourse<br>* it misses all the opportunities that the electronic democratic era brings.<br><br>There is massive opportunity for price reduction as well run organizations can publish for very little:</p><p>* J. Mach. Learn Res is platinum (free to author and read), So is J. Open Source Software and many others. I am publishing this week in Beilstein J Org Chem<br>* arxiv, etc is ca 8 USD<br>* commercial publishers like @ARPHAPlatform quote modular prices (i.e. the customer can choose what they want and what not. I don't want typesetting, I don't want marketing. Their range per artcile is about 60 USD - 600 USD.<br>* Grossman and Brembs estimated this year that 400 USD would cover the costs of a typical STEM paper. <br><br>So the DEAL price (not cost) per paper is SIX times the actual cost. Many people in these discussions confuse price with cost as the costs are non-transparent.<br><br>What DEAL does is:<br>* waste taxpayers money<br>* give established publishers a free ride - they can charge what they like especially in glamour mags and hybrids <br>* create a model almost as divisive before - one that Springer will try to market to the Global South when it actually has a better, more ethical one<br>* nothing for civil society and industry<br>* set a precedent for everyone else - the "true price" of an article at 2750 Eur.<br><br>And it builds a world where the only players are rich Northern universities and the largest most commercial megapublishers. It is bad news for societies unless the have the courage to break away completely. If you make an agreement with a megapublisher you lose control of what you don, how you do it and what the cost to the world is.<br></p></div></div><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="m_-3041377564938066933gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>"I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same".<br></div><div><br></div><div>Peter Murray-Rust<br>Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics<br>Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry<br>University of Cambridge<br>CB2 1EW, UK<br>+44-1223-763069</div></div></div></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
GOAL mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
</blockquote></div>